DOCSLIB.ORG

“The United Kingdom Genocide Act of 1969: Origins and Significance”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“The United Kingdom Genocide Act of 1969: Origins and Significance” ABSTRACT “The United Kingdom Genocide Act of 1969: Origins and Significance” by Prof. Frank Chalk History Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada and Co-Director, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies ABSTRACT In his judgment on the Pinochet extradition case of 28 October 1998, Lord Chief Justice Thomas Bingham granted immunity from criminal and civil process to General Augusto Pinochet on the grounds that “a former head of state is clearly entitled to immunity in relation to criminal acts performed in the course of exercising public functions.” Justice Bingham contended that Parliament had signified this intention by deliberately omitting Article IV of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from the 1969 United Kingdom Genocide Act. It was Article IV which provided that “Persons committing genocide . shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” This paper seeks to demonstrate that the provisions of the 1969 United Kingdom Genocide Act actually provided for the extradition and punishment of former heads of state and that key provisions of the Act were drafted by its authors to give effect to that principle. Based on archival research in the records of the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the British Cabinet, as well as the Debates of Parliament, it proposes that the 1969 United Kingdom Genocide Act had always furnished adequate grounds for the extradition of former heads of state when prima facie evidence was submitted that they had committed the crime of genocide. In fact, Justice Bingham’s decision harked back to an earlier tradition in British law that the wording of the 1969 Genocide Act was intended to replace. While Pinochet was probably not guilty of the crime of genocide as it is defined by the United Nations Genocide Convention, Justice Bingham’s argument on the intentions of Parliament regarding Article IV, reiterated by Law Lords Slynn and Hadley in their opinions, and unchallenged by either the Crown Prosecution Service or the Law Lords who favored the extradition of General Pinochet, threatened to undermine one of Britain’s landmark legislative acts. 2 DRAFT OF 22 JANUARY 2002 Please do not quote or attribute material from this workshop paper, which is under revision by the author. This draft is intended to set out the narrative for readers interested in the archival record of the debate over the drafting of the U.K. Genocide Act and its relevance to the arguments in the Pinochet extradition case. Further papers will present an explicit analytical framework, fewer quotations from the sources, and a more concise narrative. In later versions, the author will also examine the discussion of the legislation in 1968 and 1969 by Parliament and the public. Permission to employ specific quotes from the records at the PRO, the Home Office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office will be requested prior to normal scholarly publication. “The United Kingdom Genocide Act of 1969: Origins and Significance” by Prof. Frank Chalk History Department, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada and Co-Director, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies ([email protected]) British diplomats played an important role in the debates that led the United Nations in 1948 to adopt the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.1 But like the United States, Great Britain failed to give effect to the Genocide Convention in its domestic law until many years after its promulgation, and this despite Article V of the Convention, which stipulated that: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.2 It was not until 1969, eighteen years after the Convention came into force in 1951, that Parliament passed “An Act to give effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”3 This eighteen year interval was hardly the consequence of an oversight. Rather, it reflected the difficulty of achieving the 1 The United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is hereafter referred to as the UNGC. For an excellent and comprehensive discussion of the role of the British diplomats, and an in-depth review of the major debates to which they contributed at the United Nations, consult William A. Schabas, Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), most especially pp. 44, 58, 59-60, 72, 74, 159-160, 233, 248-251, 269, 289, 373-374, 403, 419-423, and 513-514. 2 “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” United Nations, 9 December 1948, reprinted in Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), p.45. 3 See Genocide Act 1969, Halsbury’s Statutes of England, 4th ed., vol. 12 (1994), pp. 541-543. It took the United States Senate even longer than Britain—thirty-five years—to ratify the Genocide Convention.. See “U.S. Senate Ratification of the UN Genocide Convention,” 19 February, 1986, ibid., pp. 49-50. The American law entered the Criminal Code of the United States in 1988. A retirement present from his colleagues for Senator William Proxmire (Dem-Wisconsin), who arose in every Congressional session to call for ratification, key provisions of the Act severely limited the application of the Convention in the United States by such means as narrowing the definitions in the Convention of terms like “incites” and “substantial part,” ibid., pp. 51-53. 3 breakthrough in British legal thinking that was needed before the British Government became willing to name genocide as a crime in British law. The radical alteration of British law symbolized by the 1969 Genocide Act barely penetrated public consciousness and was drafted in such a way that in 1998 Chief Justice Thomas Bingham of the Divisional Court in London could declare in his judgment denying Spain’s request for the extradition of General Augusto Pinochet that it was never the intention of Parliament to permit the extradition of former heads of state, even including those accused of a crime as horrific as genocide.4 Some of the responsibility for this lay in the opaque and concise wording of the United Kingdom Genocide legislation. The high priority assigned to economy in phrasing by the crafters of laws was a cardinal problem of the 1953 and the 1968 drafts of the Act. Thought to minimize the chance of anyone reading unintended implications into the Act, concision obscured from public view the intended meaning of a key provision of the Act. The Pinochet extradition case had its origin in October 1998 when Spanish Judge Balthazar Garzon requested General Augusto Pinochet’s extradition from the UK based on several charges against Pinochet, one of which was that of genocide intended to eliminate certain political and social groups in Chile and Argentina.5 Since some of those killed were citizens of Spain, Garzon claimed that Spanish courts had the right to try General Pinochet under Spanish and international law. Garzon based his charge of genocide on a convoluted legal interpretation of Spain’s domestic laws of genocide. He dropped the charge of genocide from the second of two provisional warrants for extradition presented to the High Court of Justice in London by the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of Spain, but the original charge resonated throughout the hearing before Lord Chief Justice Thomas Bingham of Cornhill, and was referred to in the decision which he wrote, joined by Justice Collins and Justice Richards, concluding that Pinochet could not be extradited to Spain because he was a former head of state and was protected in the United Kingdom by British laws granting immunity from extradition to diplomats and serving public officials, as well as former heads of state. In Justice Bingham’s words: “a former head of state is clearly entitled to immunity in relation to criminal acts performed in the course of exercising public functions.”6 In his judgment, Justice Bingham noted that Mr. Jones of the Crown Prosecution Service pointed out, “In support of his argument that crimes such as genocide have a peculiar quality of horror” and that Article IV of the UNGC provided for the punishment of persons committing genocide “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.” But, continued Justice Bingham, “the difficulty for Mr. Jones’ argument is . that when partial effect was given to the Convention in the United Kingdom by the Genocide Act, 1969, Article IV [of the UNGC] was not incorporated in the statute.”7 The subsequent appeal decisions of the British courts and the opinions of the Law Lords of the British Parliament several times referred to the omission of the criminal liability for genocide of former heads of state under the UK Genocide Act of 1969. Although the 4 R. v. Bartle, ex parte Pinochet, Divisional Court, Queen’s Bench Division, 28 October 1998, para. 63 (retrieved from the Internet on 14 January 2002 at the following site: <http://www.ceri- fog.org/documentacion/dossiers/pinochet/houseoflords.htm>) [hereinafter Ex Parte Pinochet (DC)]. 5 For a useful summary of Judge Garzon’s extradition requests and his reasoning, see, Margarita Lacabe (Executive Director of Derechos Human Rights), “The Criminal Procedures against Chilean and Argentinean Repressors in Spain: A Short Summary,” Revision One, November 11, 1998 (retrieved from the Internet on 14 January 2002 at the following site: < http://www.derechos.net/marga/papers/spain.html>.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internacional De Derechos Civiles Y Políticos
    INTERNACIONAL Distr. DE DERECHOS GENERAL ~ CIVILES C OPR/C/l/Add.17 21 de septiembre de 1 9 7 7 Y POLÍTICOS ESPAÑOL Original: INGLES COMITE DE' DERECHOS HUMANOS Tercer período de sesiones EXAMEN DE LOS INFORMES PRESENTADOS POR LOS ESTADOS PARTES DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL ARTICULO 40 DEL PACTO Informes iniciales de los Estados Partes que deben presentarse en 1977 Adición REINO UNIDO DE GRAN BRETAÑA E IRLANDA DEL NORTE [.18 de agosto de 1 9 7 7 ] Introducción 1. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos no tiene por sí mismo fuerza de ley en el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte ni en los territorios dependientes de él. La obligación asumida en virtud del parrefo 2 del artículo 2, que deja a cada Parte Contratante la libertad de elegir la forma de hacer efectivos los derechos reconocidos en el Pacto, se cumple en el Reino Unido mediante salvaguardias ‘ de distintos tipos que se aplican en los varios sistemas jurídicos, independientemente: : del Pacto pero en plena concordancia con él. 2. ^ Las explicaciones que contiene el presente informe se limitan en general al sistema jurídico de Inglaterra y Gales. Las normas jurídicas de ese sistema corresponden a dos categorías principales : normas qtie figuran en la legislación y normas que se deducen de las decisiones de los tribunales con facultades decisorias. Las de esta última categoría se derivan, a su vez, de dos fuentes -en primer lugar, el "common law” propia­ mente dicho (es decir, las leyes y costumbres reconocidas judicialmente desde los primeros tiempos) y, en segundo lugar, la interpretación de las leyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF LEGISLATION AROUND THE WORLD – 2012 UPDATE Amnesty International Publications First published in October 2012 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2012 Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 A. The two annexes...........................................................................................................6 B. Definitions...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Consents to Prosecution Consultation
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In this consultation paper we examine one of the procedural mechanisms used to control the prosecution process, namely the requirement in respect of certain offences of the consent of the Law Officers (the Attorney-General or the Solicitor- General) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”)1 as a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings. In preparing this paper, we have borne in mind the constitutional gravity of consent provisions – not only do they fetter the right of private prosecution, but also, by their nature, they impose an administrative burden on senior officials and cause an additional administrative delay within the criminal justice system. THE NEED FOR REVIEW 1.2 Although the use of consent provisions is not a recent development, their proliferation is. As we shall see in Part IV,2 although the first example is thought to date back to the early nineteenth century, it was not until the Second World War that consent provisions became widely used. We believe that the consents regime is a pressing and important subject for review. We hold this belief for a number of reasons. 1.3 First, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (“the Philips Commission”), under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips, noted that the wide-ranging list of Acts which included a consent provision suggested that “some of the restrictions ha[d] been arbitrarily imposed”;3 and in formulating proposals which eventually led to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Commission took the view that the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) provided the apposite moment for reviewing the consents regime and, noting that the DPP had said in evidence to the Commission that “the time was ripe for some rationalisation of the restrictions”,4 recommended that rationalisation should not be delayed.5 1.4 Second, notable former Law Officers have criticised the consents system.
    [Show full text]
  • João Bertola Franco De Gouveia
    10 INTRODUÇÃO Historicamente, tratando-se dos Estados, a matéria das imunidades é regida por regras costumeiras de direito internacional. O direito das imunidades foi, em seguida, enriquecido por algumas convenções. A primeira foi a convenção de Bruxelas de 1926 sobre as imunidades dos navios de Estado. Depois, surgiu a convenção de Basiléia de 1972 sobre as imunidades dos Estados, negociada sob a égide do Conselho da Europa. Posteriormente, diferentes Estados da common law, como os Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Canadá, e, ainda, a África do Sul, adotaram legislação interna sobre as imunidades. Inicialmente, a imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados era absoluta, evoluindo mais tarde para uma imunidade relativa, havendo algumas exceções em que não se aplicava a imunidade de jurisdição. Assim, as leis internas desses Estados previram exceções nos casos de lides trabalhistas ou de acidentes automobilísticos. O direito brasileiro, seguindo a tendência mundial, também adotou a imunidade relativa, a partir da Magna Carta de 1988, com uma nova interpretação do art.114, I da mesma, no caso de questões trabalhistas. Atualmente, no entanto, o direito das imunidades de jurisdição continua a evoluir, havendo doutrina e jurisprudência que sustentam a sua ausência no caso de violação dos direitos humanos. Dessa forma, o leading case seria o caso Pinochet, no qual a Câmara dos Lordes entendeu que Pinochet não teria imunidade de jurisdição perante a corte inglesa em função de atos funcionais violadores dos direitos humanos praticados durante o tempo em que foi presidente do Chile. Dessa maneira, dentre as exceções à imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados, poder-se-ia acrescentar uma nova exceção no caso de violação dos direitos humanos.
    [Show full text]
  • Separation of Powers Perspective on Pinochet, A
    A SEPARATION OF POWERS PERSPECTIVE ON PINOCHET Frank Sullivan, Jr.*, INTRODUCTION On October 16, 1998, the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, was in London undergoing medical treatment. He was arrested at the request of Spanish authorities who sought his extradition to Spain for trial on charges of human rights abuses (torture, murder, and hostage-taking) allegedly committed while he ruled Chile. Prior to any decision having been made by the U.K. government as to extradition, Pinochet himself sought a writ of habeas corpus from the U.K. courts. Pinochet, supported by Chile, argued in part that he was entitled to immunity as a former head of state under U.K. statutory law. Spain responded in part that under principles of international law, Pinochet was not entitled to the statutory immunity he claimed. On October 28, 1998, a three-judge divisional court held that he enjoyed immunity but refused to allow him to return to Chile pending appeal.' On November 25, 1998, the country's court of last resort, the Appellate Commit- tee of the House of Lords, reversed the divisional court and held that Pinochet was not immune.2 On December 17, 1998, however, the House of Lords reversed itself and vacated its first decision on grounds that one of the judges (Lord Hoffmann) who had participated in it had an impermissible conflict of * Justice, Indiana Supreme Court. LL.M., University of Virginia School of Law (2001); J.D., Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington (1982); A.B., Dartmouth College (1972). ** This article is based on a thesis submitted to fulfill a portion of the requirements of the University of Virginia Law School's LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED at STAGE 2]
    Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] CONTENTS Section PART 1 SENTENCING The Scottish Sentencing Council 3 The Scottish Sentencing Council 4 The Council’s objectives 5 Sentencing guidelines 6 Consultation on proposed sentencing guidelines 6A Approval of sentencing guidelines by High Court 7 Effect of sentencing guidelines 8 Ministers’ power to request that sentencing guidelines be prepared or reviewed 9 High Court’s power to require preparation or review of sentencing guidelines 9A Publication of High Court guideline judgements 10 Scottish Court Service to provide sentencing information to the Council 11 The Council’s power to provide information, advice etc. 12 Business plan 13 Annual report Community payback orders 14 Community payback orders Non-harassment orders 15 Non-harassment orders Short sentences 16 Short periods of detention 18 Amendments of Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 19 Early removal of certain short-term prisoners from the United Kingdom Other sentencing measures 20 Reports about supervised persons 20A Pre-sentencing reports about organisations 21 Extended sentences for certain sexual offences 22 Effect of probation and absolute discharge 23 Offences aggravated by racial or religious prejudice 24A Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions 24B Minimum sentence for having in a public place an article with a blade or point SP Bill 24A Session 3 (2010) ii Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill PART 2 CRIMINAL LAW Serious organised crime 25 Involvement in serious organised crime 26 Offences aggravated by connection with serious organised crime 27 Directing serious organised crime 28 Failure to report serious organised crime Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes 28A Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: UK residents 28B Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: retrospective application Articles banned in prison 29 Articles banned in prison Crossbows, knives etc.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Law on Genocide (And Related Crimes) and Redress for Torture Victims
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Closing the Impunity Gap: UK law on genocide (and related crimes) and redress for torture victims Twenty–fourth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 21 July 2009 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2009 HL Paper 153 HC 553 Published on 11 August 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Abingdon) The Earl of Onslow Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Baroness Prashar Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Law and Justice
    THE HAMLYN LECTURES Thirtieth Series LIBERTY, LAW AND JUSTICE Sir Norman Anderson I STEVENS 1 LIBERTY, LAW AND JUSTICE by SIR NORMAN ANDERSON O.B.E., Q.C., LL.D., F.B.A. formerly Professor of Oriental Laws and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London The concepts of liberty, law and justice, and the extent to which they serve to guarantee individual freedoms, form the central theme of the 1978 Hamlyn Lectures. Sir Norman Anderson examines the legal framework within which fundamental rights may be exercised in an important contribution to current discussion. Divided into four lectures, the work commences with an analysis of the relation of law to individual liberty today. In the second lecture, the author weighs up the prospect of incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United Kingdom. He looks at the American Constitution and considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention. Anti-discrimination legislation is explored next. Enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 aroused sharp controversy and the likely effectiveness of these measures remains problematic. In a detailed exposition of the back- ground to these statutes, comments of many leading authorities are reviewed. Limitation of human rights is dealt with in the final lecture. The degree of freedom enjoyed by Britain's Press is compared with that obtaining in the United States. There is a survey of the much-criticised Official Secrets Acts and forthright views are offered on a wide range of censorship questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture and Other Crimes Under International Law
    Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and other crimes under international law The urgent need to strengthen universal jurisdiction legislation and to enforce it vigorously July 2008 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 II. INCLUSION OF CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DEFENCES IN NATIONAL LAW ..................................................................... 5 A. Universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes in a non-international conflict ........................6 B. Universal jurisdiction over genocide ...........................................................................................................................................8 C. The problem of command and superior responsibility for international crimes under international law ...............9 D. Universal jurisdiction over torture – impermissible defences.......................................................................................... 12 III. THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM TO DEFINE CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AS CRIMES FROM THE MOMENT THEY WERE RECOGNISED AS SUCH............................. 13 IV. THE FLAWED SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS................................................ 14 A. The need for an effective specialised investigation and prosecution unit .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/11/2002. Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 2001 asp 13 The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 13th September 2001 and received Royal Assent on 24th September 2001 An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision for offences under the law of Scotland corresponding to offences within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court; to enable assistance to be provided to that court in relation to investigations and prosecutions; to make provision in relation to the enforcement of sentences and orders of that court; and for connected purposes. PART 1 OFFENCES Offences 1 Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (1) It shall be an offence for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime. (2) Subsection (1) above applies to acts committed— (a) in Scotland; or (b) outwith the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or a United Kingdom resident. (3) The Genocide Act 1969 (c.12) is repealed. (4) In subsection (1) above— “genocide” means an act of genocide as defined in article 6; “crime against humanity” means a crime against humanity as defined in article 7; and “war crime” means a war crime as defined in article 8.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Act 1989
    Extradition Act 1989 CHAPTER 33 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE Extradition Act 1989 CHAPTER 33 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I INTRODUCTORY General Seclion Liability to extradition. Extradition crimes 2. Meaning of crime". Return to foreign states 3. Arrangements for availability of Part III procedure. 4. Orders in Council as to extradition. Return to Commonwealth countries and colonies 5. Procedure for designation etc. PART II RESTRICTIONS ON RETURN 6. General restrictions on return. PART III PROCEDURE General 7. Extradition request and authority to proceed. 8. Arrest for purposes of committal. 9. Proceedings for committal. 10. Statement of case by court. 11. Application for habeas corpus etc. 12. Order for return. 13. Return to foreign states — supplementary. 14. Simplified procedure. c. 33 Extradition Act 1989 Special extradition arrangements Section 15. Special extradition arrangements. Effect of delay 16. Discharge in case of delay. Custody 17. Custody. PART IV TREATMENT OF PERSONS RETURNED 18. Restrictions upon proceedings for other offences in case of persons returned by foreign states. 19. Restrictions upon proceedings for other offences in case of persons returned by designated Commonwealth countries or colonies. 20. Restoration of persons not tried or acquitted. PART V SPECIAL CASES Repatriation cases 21. Persons serving sentences outside country of conviction. International Convention cases 22. Extension of purposes of extradition for offences under Acts giving effect to international Conventions. 23. Genocide etc. 24. Suppression of terrorism. 25. Hostage-taking. PART VI MISCELLANEOUS AND SUPPLEMENTARY Evidence 26. Authentication of foreign documents. 27. Evidence — Commonwealth countries and colonies. Warrants and orders 28. Form of warrants and orders. Channel Islands and Isle of Man 29.
    [Show full text]
  • Note on the Investigation and Prosecution of Crimes of Universal Jurisdiction
    Note on the investigation and prosecution of crimes of universal jurisdiction © Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to [email protected] Note on the investigation and prosecution of crimes of universal jurisdiction Contents Introduction and context 2 Concept of universal jurisdiction in UK law 2 When will an investigation in England and Wales take place? 3 Decision to investigate 3 Decisions in respect of private arrest warrants 4 Decision to prosecute 4 Role of the Attorney General 5 Scotland 5 Northern Ireland 6 Immunity of state officials from criminal jurisdiction 8 Categories of persons enjoying personal immunity 8 Official act immunity 9 Annex A: War crimes / crimes against humanity referral guidelines 11 Introduction 11 A. Scoping Exercise 12 B. Referral to CPS by SO15 for early investigative advice 14 C. Final investigative scoping 14 D. Referral to CTD for consideration of prosecution 15 E. Duties of disclosure 16 Annex B: Guidance for making an application for DPP consent for an application for a private arrest warrant in accordance with Section 1(4a) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 17 Introduction 17 Guidance 18 1 Note on the investigation and prosecution of crimes of universal jurisdiction Introduction and context 1.
    [Show full text]